The Dawkins Confusion – Plantinga responds Dr. Alvin Plantinga my all time favorite philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, who I’ve mentioned. Alvin Plantinga is without question one of the great scholars in the world Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?. Christianity Today has published this lengthy review of The God Delusion. The review’s author is Alvin Plantinga, who is often described as.

Author: Milkree Gardanos
Country: Paraguay
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 23 February 2016
Pages: 397
PDF File Size: 16.94 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.41 Mb
ISBN: 764-9-64833-791-1
Downloads: 45514
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Grogore

The “odds” are in his favor. One trouble that I see is that crying “Courtier’s Reply” could become a knee-jerk response against legitimate criticism of Dawkins, if it hasn’t already. God has created dawkiins in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling palntinga having nipples!

Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true?

Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins

Anyone who uses bigotry, blackmail and religious constructs to argue doesn’t deserve a hearing. I find it very humorous, though, that it took that much philosophical jargon I don’t use that term derogatorily to say what I’ve known as common sense for years, namely, that naturalism and athiesm are self-defeating, and therefore impossible. It’s been on the best-seller lists. At the end of the day, Plantinga’s argument falls by the same wayside as Behe’s did in his testimony xawkins the Dover Evolution Trial.

Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is – God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. This does not have to concern us, since the probability increases as we come nearer to CF’s that dawkisn evolutionary unavoidable, in other words, when we base our reasons as close to the data gathered by our senses as possible, we are as sure as we can be of our conclusions.

This seems to be an underlying assumption of many of your arguments; but Plantinga seems to be arguing pantinga the reason why daqkins observe data accurately.

I think he’s arguing that BELIEF in atheism and naturalism is self-defeating, and therefore can’t be rational to believe. Of course, this doesn’t mean all our perceptions are true, just that they are likely to be true most of the time.

Thus, Plantinga is trying to justify his Properly Basic Belief in God the same way naturalists justify trusting our reason and senses — most of the time. I only wish Plantinga would apply his thoughts one step further and realize he shouldn’t try to write about biology. Science, Religion, and Naturalism.

We’d be constantly running away from non-existent predators every time we heard rustling. The God hypothesis is an unneeded one. The basic point is that while a trait of mild oversensitivity to the presence of predators may be adaptive, a trait of gross oversensitivity probably is not, because the cost from all the false triggerings would exceed the benefit from true ones.

This is a well used creationist tactic; tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth. Remember a few posts back, when we saw Michael Ruse lecturing Richard Dawkins as follows: Egged on by his acolytes, it is as if he has become a caricature of his own public persona.

Everything we do could be done just the same without the existence of consciouness. In fact, the argument depends upon it being true that the objective probability of reliable cognitive abilities given the conjunctive framework of evolution and naturalism is either low or inscrutable so as to be less than the same objective probability given theism.

He has misunderstood Darwin and Dawkins,et. It’s as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits – for example, one part in 10 60 – for life to be possible in our universes. I think he has little choice in that, since they are intimately bound. So if Dawkins proposes that God’s existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God – an argument that doesn’t just start from the premise that materialism is true.

Ben Witherington: Alvin Plantinga’s Refutation of “The God Delusion”

Recently a number of thinkers have proposed a new version of the argument from design, the so-called “Fine-Tuning Argument. Cofnusion guy may be brilliant certainly much smarter than I ambut he seems to have hitched his horse to ID cart, which–in my irrational Darwinism-induced perpetual state of atheistic angst; –simply annoys the hell out of me.

On the other hand, horse religion would keep insisting that there are invisible predators in the bushes even when science can’t detect any I have fawkins agree it’s not the best book on atheism I’ve read. First, is God complex? Plantinga, do you say “From a theistic point of view”?

The naturalist can be reasonable sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive: We’d quickly die of starvation, predation, poisoning, accident, exposure or some other such cause. Plantniga fact is religion-bashing today is about as dangerous as endorsing the party’s presidential candidate at a Republican rally.

Look at this, from the section following the quote above: This would include all large species of plabtinga and reptiles, all of which face the problems of finding food, finding mates, avoiding predators, avoiding falls and other causes of injury, and so on.

Neil, it does seem odd to me what Dawkins is arguing. If we simply assume that such a God exists, then, according to Plantinga, we have a sound basis for believing our cognitive faculties are accurate.